• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jordan Peterson

Frideswide, did your passports identify you as male or female ?
 
Frideswide said:
That is gender. Which is flexible. There is no scientific basis to gender being unchanging because it is defined otherwise. You are talking about which country? It's not as monolithic as you think.

Given the changeability of law, it isn't a good basis for issuing ineffective wee fiats either




I think that this couple can probably manage very well to organise and run their own lives without you attempting to ride shotgun to smooth out every difficulty for them. It's very sweet you want to infantilise them (what am I saying, no it isn't) but this is there problem. By the way, I celebrate my 30th wedding anniversary later this year. Neither of us changed names. It's never been an issue, even in 1990 in super rural greece with crucifixes and icons in three corners of each room. For most of my married life I had two passports - legitimately and without problem - one that said I was married and one that said I was single. It made travelling on business on my own much easier sometimes, depending on where you were going. A friend had two, one of which had he married name and the kids, the other didn't - again for business.

The world manages very well without you trying to me its moral guardian. Relax, take a deep breath. Repeat to yourself "this is not my business."



What whole thing? Imagining hypothetical situations and then getting all hot under the collar about them?
Click to expand...

Such situations are only hypothetical until they hit reality.

I should imagine that firstly the passport office will reject the application because it will need to be accompanied by a birth certificate that will show the the person is male. And, if I remember correctly (it was a long time since needed to renew my passport) you are required to state your biological sex.

Assuming the guy got past this hurdle, as soon as he presented the passport at the terminal the passport officer will probably press a concealed button and then inform the officers who appear that 'This passport is possibly stolen. It is for a woman and the bearer is clearly a man'.

They will be missing their flight.

You seem be be getting very he't up about this. Odd for something you consider to not be important.

If you think that gender is flexible, well, good luck to you on that one.
 
INT21 said:
No, men and women are constructed differently and have different strengths.
Click to expand...

Please revisit the difference between sex and gender. You are speaking of gender as if it is sex - a bit like treating a migraine as if it is a broken leg.

INT21 said:
I should imagine
Click to expand...

you really love this stuff! :rollingw: Can you even consider the idea at the level you describe it isn't your business?

INT21 said:
You seem be be getting very he't up about this. Odd for something you consider to not be important.
Click to expand...

What matters to me is flacid argument, on any subject - and especially when said argument is being used as a reason that the rights and liberties of others should be interfered with.

When you have reviewed sex versus gender, perhaps you could explain how gender isn't flexible?
 
Whilst I think about this, maybe you could address post #205 above.

By the way, you still haven't addressed the question of how you are entitled on your passport, or what gender is stated; of should I say 'what sex' ?
 
So, let's take it back to what started this (post #196), and get back to Peterson.

If the person in question were to request that I refer to him as Mrs, I would have to decline.

I would explain this along the lines of (particularly if he was a friend) 'I'm sorry, but I can't do that. It is against by understanding of the meaning of the title 'Mrs'. Can I just carry on referring to you by your first name ? After all, we have known each other for years.'

If the response was 'No, I wish to be called 'Mrs (x)' then I would, probably with some sadness, have to say 'Well, it that case we will have co consider this friendship over. I hope you have a happy future'.

And why would I do this ?

Well, I have my own view on how titles should be used.

And to refer to Peterson, you have to stand up for what you believe, even if the results are sometimes unpleasant.

If the person valued the friendship then they would consider making an exception. If not, well, so be it.

Seems reasonable to me.
 
INT21 said:
So, let's take it back to what started this (post #196), and get back to Peterson.

If the person in question were to request that I refer to him as Mrs, I would have to decline.

I would explain this along the lines of (particularly if he was a friend) 'I'm sorry, but I can't do that. It is against by understanding of the meaning of the title 'Mrs'. Can I just carry on referring to you by your first name ? After all, we have known each other for years.'

If the response was 'No, I wish to be called 'Mrs (x)' then I would, probably with some sadness, have to say 'Well, it that case we will have co consider this friendship over. I hope you have a happy future'.

And why would I do this ?

Well, I have my own view on how titles should be used.

And to refer to Peterson, you have to stand up for what you believe, even if the results are sometimes unpleasant.

If the person valued the friendship then they would consider making an exception. If not, well, so be it.

Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
It's too bad that you would lose a longtime friendship over titles. Though referring to someone with their name is fine. But why would you expect your friend to give you the exception and not extend the same to him/her?

At one time it was tradition to refer to females as Mrs. or Miss which was only to address marriage status, but for males there was not any such expectation.

I don't adhere to these titles and actually like that on some questionnaires or surveys (and on my profile here) I can answer "prefer not to answer".

Some of my husband's friends had more trouble with me keeping my surname than his family did. C'est la vie. That's their problem, not mine.

You are going in circles with some of your reasoning.
 
INT21 said:
If the person valued the friendship then they would consider making an exception. If not, well, so be it.

Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Reverse it. This is something intimate and important to them. It's not intimate to you and it shouldn't challenge your sense of identity.

Weird thing to end a friendship over - possibly you weren't friends and the person would realise that. Please god let no one in reality have to deal with such callous friendship.
 
Frideswide said:
Reverse it. This is something intimate and important to them. It's not intimate to you and it shouldn't challenge your sense of identity.

Weird thing to end a friendship over - possibly you weren't friends and the person would realise that. Please god let no one in reality have to deal with such callous friendship.
Click to expand...

So you don't consider it possible that the person would be playing a power game with you ?

Sort of ' well, if you wont acquiesce to my wish then is it possible that you are, what's the in-word ? ah yes, homophobic.

Or that the whole thing is so ridicoulous that you wouldn't want to be associated with someone who thought that way.
 
brownmane said:
It's too bad that you would lose a longtime friendship over titles. Though referring to someone with their name is fine. But why would you expect your friend to give you the exception and not extend the same to him/her?

At one time it was tradition to refer to females as Mrs. or Miss which was only to address marriage status, but for males there was not any such expectation.

I don't adhere to these titles and actually like that on some questionnaires or surveys (and on my profile here) I can answer "prefer not to answer".

Some of my husband's friends had more trouble with me keeping my surname than his family did. C'est la vie. That's their problem, not mine.

You are going in circles with some of your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Actually, no circles.

Consider, It is proper to refer to a married woman by her husbands name. I e, Mrs Tony Bloggs. I have a cousin who still uses this format.

The use of Ms came about in the late sixties when women, often of uncertain marital state, adopted it as they did not wish to be tied to the idea of actually being married. It is also used by women who are living in common law relationships; that is logical as if you haven't been through a marriage ceremony then, regardless of the common law rights you acquire, you are still no married and can't really use the title Mrs. Which is reserved for a married woman.But Miss is for single girls, which you really are not if you are in a common law relationship. It is a quasi marriage.
Also it was part of the women.s Lib' movement tropes.

The nearest men seem to have is the use or Master for a young man not yet married. It has fallen into disuse, but an still be heard.

It really is quite simple, at least in the case of normal heterosexual marriage. A man is Mr (unless he has a title like Doctor, Lord, professor etc) and a woman is Mrs. An unmarried woman is Miss. It is confused a bit by the convention of calling, say, a waitress or some similar woman 'Miss'.
For the older woman there is Madam.

Other countries have their own variations. The Germans are particularly picky about this kind of thing.

If both partners were, say, doctors, then he would be 'Herr Doctor (x) and she would be Frau Doctor (x).

But we digress.

It was pointed out above that in a homosexual marriage (male) there is no Mrs, just two Mr. This is simply because there is no female component in the relationship.

And to throw some petrol on the fire, marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. And as half of the requirement is missing, the marriage of two gay men is really a legal form of partnership; not a marriage.

Look, I wish no ill will on homosexuals, either single or in partnerships. and wish them all the best and all the rights they can acquire.But we have a form of language that has served us well for hundreds of years. One where everyone knew what meant what. Bastardising the language just because it is trendy should not allowed.

The gay set seem to wish to disrupt this just because they know that our liberal country will allow them to do so.

It's a power game. They have gained a lot over the last fifty year. Why are they not satisfied ?

At the other end of the tolerance spectrum, Brunei has just brought in stoning to death for gays and adulterers.

One needs to know which side one's bread is buttered.
 
INT21 said:
Actually, no circles.

But we have a form of language that has served us well for hundreds of years. One where everyone knew what meant what. Bastardising the language just because it is trendy should not allowed...

One needs to know which side one's bread is buttered.
Click to expand...
I do get the idea that you are playing devil's advocate. You are only referring to certain people by certain titles because you believe that "we (assuming English) have...language that has served us well for hundreds of years'. Just over one hundred years, Canadian women got legal rights to vote. Legal language changed.

English language is bastardized from many other languages. We make up words (fax, spam etc) to enhance our understanding of what each of us mean when we are speaking or writing.

I cannot change how you feel about the current language, some of which is termed "politically correct" because it is being deemed by governments that certain words are to be used in the workplace. I don't always agree how things are changed in society, but if a person explains to me that it is derogatory and/or demeaning to them, then I try to understand their viewpoint. I don't just shoot them down because I don't understand all of the facets.

I again ask why you don't extend the same exceptions to people that you expect them to give you.

Back to Jordan Peterson, who, as Amoradala corrected me, originally stated that he refused on principal to use gender neutral pronouns if required by law. All that I can think of at this time, is that the French language would be very difficult to figure out. Though apparently there is a little used pronoun that is gender neutral.
 
Possibly Peterson was referring to the new habit of referring to 'Chairman' as 'chairperson' etc.

Spokesman, spokeswoman becomes 'spokesperson.

..but if a person explains to me that it is derogatory and/or demeaning to them, ..

(Yes, I know, shouldn't extract lines.)

How is it derogatory ?

Would not a wife in the normal sense of the word, feel objection to a man using the term ?
 
brownmane said:
I do get the idea that you are playing devil's advocate. You are only referring to certain people by certain titles because you believe that "we (assuming English) have...language that has served us well for hundreds of years'.

I again ask why you don't extend the same exceptions to people that you expect them to give you.

.
Click to expand...

I don't recall mentioning that anyone should make any exceptions for me. If you point out some examples I will address them.

As for referring to people by their titles. Surely this is simple sense.

when someone says 'go to office and see Mrs Johnson', you expect to find a woman.

As I see it, it is a fault in someones personality to wish to be address by a female title when they are male.
 
INT21 said:
I don't recall mentioning that anyone should make any exceptions for me. If you point out some examples I will address them.
.
Click to expand...
Just that you would not address a friend as they wish (your hypothetical example), but I'm sure that you expect them to address you as you wish, even if it is by your name only. I actually prefer my name only as my gender doesn't matter to many people that I deal with (especially addressing mail or invitations).

My gender may or may not matter to me. I cannot really tell as I have not had to question it.
 
brownmane said:
Just that you would not address a friend as they wish (your hypothetical example), but I'm sure that you expect them to address you as you wish, even if it is by your name only. I actually prefer my name only as my gender doesn't matter to many people that I deal with (especially addressing mail or invitations).

My gender may or may not matter to me. I cannot really tell as I have not had to question it.
Click to expand...

I agree that it would be a compromise to settle for using names. And I did mention this in the original post.

But I extended this to 'what if the person insisted in me using the Female title'. ?

That to me is unreasonable.

I can't think of a situation where someone would refer to me as Mrs. Unless they were deliberately trying to be offensive. Then it could lead to trouble.
 
INT21 said:
I agree that it would be a compromise to settle for using names. And I did mention this in the original post.

But I extended this to 'what if the person insisted in me using the Female title'. ?

That to me is unreasonable.

I can't think of a situation where someone would refer to me as Mrs. Unless they were deliberately trying to be offensive. Then it could lead to trouble.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but to some people, referring to the wrong gender intentionally can be offensive to them. I think that this is what most of the use of pronouns, or not, is getting twisted around. I have a friend who is bi (sexual) and her partner is gender neutral. I don't personally understand either one of these predispositions, but I don't intentionally insult either one of them by using language they see as offensive to them. But do I slip up? Sometimes.

And you are lucky that most people guess as to how you'd like to be addressed. But you even said that if someone misstated you as Mrs. intentionally then there would be trouble. Kind of quoting Peter Sellers: "You looka lika man."

I think that trying to make using certain words into a law does put people in fear of "what if I make a mistake?" I am only supposing, as I have not seen anything other than one documentary about JP, that this may have been what Peterson might have been trying to say to begin with. That making something into law without fully understanding what the real issue is, should be questioned to make sure that the real issue is addressed. Gender pronouns are not the full issue.
 
brownmane said:
I understand what you are saying, but to some people, referring to the wrong gender intentionally can be offensive to them.

And you are lucky that most people guess as to how you'd like to be addressed. But you even said that if someone misstated you as Mrs. intentionally then there would be trouble. Kind of quoting Peter Sellers: "You looka lika man."
Click to expand...

but to some people, referring to the wrong gender intentionally can be offensive to them.

That isn't the problem here. It's someone asking you to refer to them by the incorrect gender title.

And you are lucky that most people guess as to how you'd like to be addressed. But you even said that if someone misstated you as Mrs. intentionally then there would be trouble. Kind of quoting Peter Sellers: "You looka lika man."

It is unlikely anyone would mistake me for female; you've see the picture.
There is a young man in one of our supermarkets, on the checkout, who calls everyone 'love'.

I don't particularly like it, but it is his way, and he applies it to everyone.

As for 'you kinda look like a man, again, that is possible for a lot of people who have an androgynous appearance. But once corrected it shouldn't happen again.
 
Last edited:
brownmane said:
Gender pronouns are not the full issue.
Click to expand...
Proscribed speech is an issue. It should not be up to anyone to force anyone else to speak in a certain way or using certain words.

It may not be good manners to address people in a way they do not like, and possibly offensive, but the answer is not to dictate what words and phrases are allowed and what are not.

In any event, I literally don't care what gender folk are or what their sexual orientation is or how they identify (today). I just don't give a rat's arse, it's utterly irrelevant.

But; are you honest? Reasonable? Kind to people? Work hard? Have integrity?

Those things matter to me and generally make the world a better place.

Whatever the answers to those questions are, I don't care if you're the Omnipotent Deity almighty, no one gets to tell me how I must speak, act or address them. They just don't. Not ever.

It's just petty tyranny.

There is no good tyranny.
 
Coal said:
Proscribed speech is an issue. It should not be up to anyone to force anyone else to speak in a certain way or using certain words.
.
Click to expand...
I thought that that was kind of what I was saying when I said that making a law without questioning if it really addresses the issue should be questioned.
 
INT21 said:
As for 'you kinda look like a man, again, that is possible for a lot of people who have an androgynous appearance. But one corrected it shouldn't happen again.
Click to expand...
I was actually joking. Peter Sellers came into my mind. lol
 
brownmane said:
I think that trying to make using certain words into a law does put people in fear of "what if I make a mistake?" I am only supposing, as I have not seen anything other than one documentary about JP, that this may have been what Peterson might have been trying to say to begin with. That making something into law without fully understanding what the real issue is, should be questioned to make sure that the real issue is addressed. Gender pronouns are not the full issue.
Click to expand...
And what if people deliberately misquote and misrepresent your words for their own malicious agenda. (which ironically is exactly what is happening to Jordan Peterson over this very issue.)

This thread illustrates a microcosm of the soundbite influenced society currently driven by social engineering bullies and psychopaths.
How many posters here are happy to give opinion on Jordan Peterson whilst admitting to not having really read or listened to what he actually presents, commenting without knowledge, experience nor evidence ?

Maybe the problem is, many people don’t have the time to or the ability to concentrate on a complex and carefully worded proposition. So they want it broken down to a short easily understood soundbite.
Hence the former mentioned Kathy Newman interview trope ‘So what you’re saying is ‘ then going on to entirely misrepresent what had been a careful and reasonable explanation of a complex subject.

The real danger here, for those that prefer soundbite opinion is they are easily influenced and manipulated by the often malicious agenda of those feeding them the misinformation ( mainstream media and psychopathic social manipulators they represent.)
 
Coal said:
Proscribed speech is an issue. It should not be up to anyone to force anyone else to speak in a certain way or using certain words.

It may not be good manners to address people in a way they do not like, and possibly offensive, but the answer is not to dictate what words and phrases are allowed and what are not.

In any event, I literally don't care what gender folk are or what their sexual orientation is or how they identify (today). I just don't give a rat's arse, it's utterly irrelevant.

But; are you honest? Reasonable? Kind to people? Work hard? Have integrity?

Those things matter to me and generally make the world a better place.

Whatever the answers to those questions are, I don't care if you're the Omnipotent Deity almighty, no one gets to tell me how I must speak, act or address them. They just don't. Not ever.

It's just petty tyranny.

There is no good tyranny.
Click to expand...

Coal, you have missed the whole point.

Let me recap'.

the original post was about a male half of a homosexual couple who had been married.

And as they were now married, one of them wished to referred to as 'Mrs'. I can only assume that this person saw himself as the wife in the marriage.

But, if 'he' asked you to address 'him' as Mrs, I would not be willing to do this as I hold that 'Mrs' is the title of a female half of a legally married couple. And He is not a She.

What appears to be causing a problem is that I went on to say that, if the person (who for the sake of the discussion I had known previously) insisted that I refer to him as Mrs, ( and not as, say, Harry) then I could not continue the relationship as it was, to me , a misuse of a proper internationally recognised title.

I received flak for this statement. But let me turn the argument around.

Is it not the person who is insisting on the use of this title, with someone who knows him as a friend and normally uses his first name, playing a power game ?

Is the friendship (TO THEM] of such little value that they are willing to kill it over what is really an unreasonable request ?

If it was a case of simply changing, say the address from Harry to Gwendolyn (or whatever) no problem. That is just a name change. There are plenty of men with nominally female names. France is notorious for this.

Coal, you appear to be approaching it from the other end.

It is not a case of addressing someone in a way they do not want. It is a case of them wishing you to address them in a manner that you find inapropriate.

SO, in the hypothetical situation, what would you do ?

For a man to use a female title is a minefield.
 
Last edited:
Yithian said:
They almost certainly are.
Click to expand...

Ah, Yithian, Funny you should mention that.

I have to ask this, and please do not be offended.

You recently posted two pictures purported to be yourself. At least in the context of the post.

I have to admit that, although the second one (the gif) was, to me, clearly of a female. I wasn't sure about the first (top) one.

A, were the pictures of you ?

B, are you male or female ?

I always assumed you were male.

Again, no offense intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top